Faster horses
Well-known member
From NewsMax Magazine, Dick Morris author:
President Obama may have won the Peace Prize, but nobody thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize in economics.
Despite $800 billion of economic stimulus and the accumulation of a $1.4 trillion deficit, he has been unable to lower the unemployment rate below 9.8%. So why, after 10 months of Obama, do voters, in a recent Rasmussen poll, still blame Bush for he economic situation by 55-37?
How can Obama skate by without having to account for his failures?
Liberalism, particularly in economics, usually is protected by pessimism. When government intervention and spending fails to yield the predicted results, month after month and year after year, the left sells the notion that these are tough times and that we need to lower our expectations.
In the late 70s, for example, the mantra that "less is more" gripped policymakers.
American was in late middle age and facing its decline, inevitable (and even healthy), we were told, after its artificial post-World War II dominance.
Then came Reagan, who showed us all how unrealistic these expectations were and how they could be put to shame if the private sector were truly unleashed. Margaret Thatcher taught the same lesson to British pessimists, clucking at the decline in their island's fortunes.
In the early and mid-90's, austerity was the order of the day as President
Clinton and Speaker Gingrich vied with one another to eliminate the deficit by cutting spending. But when Clinton and Newt slashed the capital gains tax instead, the economy soared and the deficit--one ticketed for eradication in seven years dissolved in 18 months.
Now Obama is succeeding in convincing us that we are entering an era of scarcity and that prosperity will remain a distant goal as we wrestle to the high unemployment that is inevitable in these though times. The more his economic policies doom us to continued high unemployment, which inhibits the consumer spending that could cure it, the more he will peddle the mantra that joblessness in inevitable.
How long will Obama be able to get away with this shell game? For how many more months will he succeed in shucking the blame for his failed policies onto Bush?
He probably will be able to escape the rap for unemployment and slow growth, but the deficits he introduced trigger inflation, all bets will be off.
The collapse of the dollar and the continuation of high deficits and seemingly endless issuance of new money by the Fed all make inflation very likely in the opinion of most economists.
The new disease will clearly not be from the hangover of the Bush administration, but will be Obama's fault in the eyes of the public.
President Obama may have won the Peace Prize, but nobody thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize in economics.
Despite $800 billion of economic stimulus and the accumulation of a $1.4 trillion deficit, he has been unable to lower the unemployment rate below 9.8%. So why, after 10 months of Obama, do voters, in a recent Rasmussen poll, still blame Bush for he economic situation by 55-37?
How can Obama skate by without having to account for his failures?
Liberalism, particularly in economics, usually is protected by pessimism. When government intervention and spending fails to yield the predicted results, month after month and year after year, the left sells the notion that these are tough times and that we need to lower our expectations.
In the late 70s, for example, the mantra that "less is more" gripped policymakers.
American was in late middle age and facing its decline, inevitable (and even healthy), we were told, after its artificial post-World War II dominance.
Then came Reagan, who showed us all how unrealistic these expectations were and how they could be put to shame if the private sector were truly unleashed. Margaret Thatcher taught the same lesson to British pessimists, clucking at the decline in their island's fortunes.
In the early and mid-90's, austerity was the order of the day as President
Clinton and Speaker Gingrich vied with one another to eliminate the deficit by cutting spending. But when Clinton and Newt slashed the capital gains tax instead, the economy soared and the deficit--one ticketed for eradication in seven years dissolved in 18 months.
Now Obama is succeeding in convincing us that we are entering an era of scarcity and that prosperity will remain a distant goal as we wrestle to the high unemployment that is inevitable in these though times. The more his economic policies doom us to continued high unemployment, which inhibits the consumer spending that could cure it, the more he will peddle the mantra that joblessness in inevitable.
How long will Obama be able to get away with this shell game? For how many more months will he succeed in shucking the blame for his failed policies onto Bush?
He probably will be able to escape the rap for unemployment and slow growth, but the deficits he introduced trigger inflation, all bets will be off.
The collapse of the dollar and the continuation of high deficits and seemingly endless issuance of new money by the Fed all make inflation very likely in the opinion of most economists.
The new disease will clearly not be from the hangover of the Bush administration, but will be Obama's fault in the eyes of the public.